Star Trek 2009

[Die Hard]

I suppose I don't.  Just doesn't really make any sense. 

In AH terms, that's like ripping out the self-sealing tank material and putting in a layer of explosive that detonates on kinetic impact.  No one (except maybe the A6M designers ) would design an airplane like that...why make a spaceship that way?  You would want your most explosive compounds (yes, concentrated O2 is quite volatile) safely hidden in the depths of the ship, I would think. 

You know... You could strike a match in space and it would burn. A lot of materials will burn without an external source of oxygen. Also those star ships are powered with fusion- or antimatter-plasma through a plasma-grid using the magnetic-bottle principle. If you have any idea what fusion/antimatter-plasma is you can imagine what will happen if containment is breached.

[druski85]

You know... You could strike a match in space and it would burn. A lot of materials will burn without an external source of oxygen. Also those star ships are powered with fusion- or antimatter-plasma through a plasma-grid using the magnetic-bottle principle. If you have any idea what fusion/antimatter-plasma is you can imagine what will happen if containment is breached.

Really? I was under the impression the only "burning" that occurs in space without an external O2 source is nuclear reaction via fusion within stars.  How does a match burn if the fuel source has no O2 with which to bond? 

[Saxman]

Explosions can (and do) still occur in space. They won't LOOK the same, but they do.

[Die Hard]

Really? I was under the impression the only "burning" that occurs in space without an external O2 source is nuclear reaction via fusion within stars.  How does a match burn if the fuel source has no O2 with which to bond? 

The wood won't burn without external oxygen, but the head of the match contains potassium chlorate which is an oxidizer.

You can fire guns in space too. And imagine this... you can even burn rocket fuel! True story!

[ODBAL]

You know... You could strike a match in space and it would burn. A lot of materials will burn without an external source of oxygen. Also those star ships are powered with fusion- or antimatter-plasma through a plasma-grid using the magnetic-bottle principle. If you have any idea what fusion/antimatter-plasma is you can imagine what will happen if containment is breached.

Ummm, you realize Star Trek is not real, right?   

J/K, couldn't resist.

On an unrelated yet totally related note.... Anyone seen the Documentary "Trekkies"?  One of the best scary movies ever!

[Die Hard]

Star Trek isn't real, no. However fusion, antimatter and plasma are all very real.

[ODBAL]

Star Trek isn't real, no. However fusion, antimatter and plasma are all very real.

Wow... Yes those are all real.  You win. 

[Die Hard]

 

[druski85]

You can fire guns in space too. And imagine this... you can even burn rocket fuel! True story!

Rocket fuel is mixed with an oxidizer, true story!

No need for sarcasm here, I was asking a legitimate question.  I wasn't aware match heads had KClO3 in em.  Not to mention it doesn't change my statement that they need an oxygen source...even if in this case it is not pure O2.  

Regardless, the entire "look at all the stuff that can burn in space!" is still a red herring to the original question.  None of it explains why hitting an area of armor would cause a lasting burn in space.  Whether you have O2 or a different oxidizing compound, you still wouldn't want to store it anywhere where you think could get hit.

[Die Hard]

No isult indended, sorry. Was meant as a joke. Perhaps I should have added one of these: 

[APDrone]

When George Lucas made Star Wars, Stanly Kubrik berated him for the sounds and explosions in space, where the actual affect would be far different.. to which George responded by saying that the public demanded the flash and booms.  It's part of the entertainment.

I look at the 'unreality' that such films provide and I tolerate it, because if the film isn't successfull, there will be no sequel.  And, a little of a bad thing with a lot of good is better than none of either.

I'm also one of those that can watch 2001 over and over and appreciate it for the true genius it was.

[moot]

The star trek ships weighing more than they ought to be able to swing around like they do isn't any more incredible than torpedoes shaking those same huge ships from one end to the other as they do.. Or the fancy inertial dampeners not catching that, etc. 

[RightF00T]

I thought the story, cinematography, sound design, CGI, acting, cameos(there were a few) were all very well done.  I loved it and will see it again.

[Die Hard]

I thought the story, cinematography, sound design, CGI, acting, cameos(there were a few) were all very well done.  I loved it and will see it again.

QFT

[Chalenge]

Well when 'nation' gets around to building the first starship and we see how its really done it will ruin movies like this but until then I think enjoying Trek movies is just fine with me.